XPost: alt.paranormal, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.ufo.reports
From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:fhn87kpg343f69llaaj4ofaq
j8gg8md1a@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
>>>>>>>>>> and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream
>>>>>>>>>> scientific teaching for a long time until it
>>>>>>>>>> was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
>>>>>>>>>> Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
>>>>>>>>>> from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate,
Except
>>>>>>>>>> today there are fools who like to argue a
>>>>>>>>>> gainst what science has already determined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
>>>>>>>>>> avoid the fools..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is now a law of science.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own
kind.
>>>>>>>>>> It is a law of science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the
>>>>>>>>> NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to
STOP
>>>>>>>>> using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What this research has basically consisted of has been
>>>>>>>>a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
>>>>>>>>All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nothing to do with real world *science*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned?
>>>>>>> *They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If that were true,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is. For example, from
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/
>>>>>
>>>>> "RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like
>>>>> products of natural selection. This raises the question of what
>>>>> step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will
>>>>> clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution
>>>>> will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life
>>>>> unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."
>>>>
>>>>You cite a "fantasized scenario" on how life could have started.
>>>>But there is a difference between a fantasized scenario and real
>>>>world *science*.
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>>The link you posted was a "fantasized scenario". Anyone may see that.
>
> No, like I said (and you snipped), saying "My imaginary friend Jesus
> did it"
The fact that you think you must lie to support your position,
is evidence that your position is false; and that you are trying
to fight against the truth..
> is the *real* fantasy, not what the hard-working
> progress-making scientists doing ongoing abiogenesis research are
> telling us.
Tell us anything they are doing that is not based upon fantasy.
You can't.
>>> fantasy is not "looks like the products of natural selection."
>>> Going by what something looks like is, "to first order" what you
>>> should accept as a starting point in one's intellectual endeavors.
>>
>>If one wants the truth, they would not resort to fantasy. Especially
>>when *science* has -already- spoken. If they do, then they are not
>>interested in the truth.
>
> Invoking miracles to explain the origin of life is not scientific.
The fact remains that, life comes "only from" preexisting life.
And those who "rule out" any option are not interested in truth.
>>>>And if you knew more about the science of the subject involved,
>>>>you would not have so easily been deceived. But I suspect you
>>>>are strongly influenced by 'philosophical prejudice' that skews
>>>>your perception.
>>>
>>> Why would such a "philosophical prejudice" develop, in your view?
>>
>>Because some place a greater value on their biases than on the truth.
>
> Where would that bias come from in the first place?
>
>>>>>> it would identify them to be fools
>>>>>>for ignoring what empirical, real world science has
>>>>>>>> *ALREADY* << established to be true!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge
>>>>> from bales of hay.
>>>>
>>>>We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously
>>>>existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there
>>>>are some fools who like to argue against what science has already
>>>>determined.
>>>
>>> I take it that to make your rule of thumb work you have to assume
>>> that your god is alive.
>>
>>That was not the issue in this thread, but it hints as to the origin of
>>your biases.
>
> It's simple logic, Andrew. If life *only* comes from life,
That haappens to be a "scientific fact" with no exceptions noted ever.
> (and life according to you) came from God, then God must be life. See it
now?
Oh, so that's your problem! That exposes the underling
reason of_why_you are foolishly trying to fight against
the truth.
>>> So if he is, tell us whether or not this matches
>>> up to what you claim to know about him:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
>>>
>>> "Life, also known as biota, refers to matter that has biological
>>> processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. It is
>>> defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation,
>>> metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
>>
>>ALL the above must be present for life to be. So where did
>>it originate?
>
> You're assuming half-alive creatures can't exist. But those kind of
> replicators almost certainly existed.
They did and do exist --> in the fantasy world of fools.
>> When considering that question, this is the key
>>point to remember.
>>
>> "The key point to remember in abiogenesis research is:
>> There is no way in hell that proteins could have formed
>> by non-biological chemical processes...in terms of their
>> process of origin, they are churned out only by machines
>> in living cells that use the genetic code as part of their
>> production apparatus."
>> ~Vincent Maycock
>
> Sure, I'm an RNA-first kind of guy.
In the real world, RNA comes only from
DNA, which itself comes only from pre-
existing DNA. You should have known
that!
A lone RNA molecule would have no
function or purpose apart from the code
that it receives from DNA.
The RNA world hypothesis is in effect a
*fantasy world* for fools who reject real
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
